memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:A Time to Stand (episode)
Enterprise (NX-01) model hidden at the start of this episode? This is my first time posting to this wiki, so hope this is the right place to post this. I've been re-watching the whole of DS9 recently and having just got to this episode I noticed in the opening scene after the re-cap, there is a ship with a model very similar in shape to the NX-01. Its only one screen for a second and appears at the front of the 'fleet' shot in the bottom left hand corner but it seems to look a lot like the model that was eventually used for the Enterprise in terms of ridges on its saucer and thin body. Does anyone else think this is true or am I just seeing things? --Nidonocu 04:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC) :You're probably looking at an Akira class starship. They were featured in a lot of DW "fleet shots". The NX-01's basic body plan was taken from the Akira model, only turned upside down, so from a distance they look a lot alike.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC) ::Agreed, most likely an Akira. It is definitely not an NX-01 model. This episode was what, 4 years before Enterprise aired? I doubt they had even conceived the series yet, let alone made a model. --GO RED SOX 05:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) ::: One, there is definately an Akira bottom left of the Defiant, also the ship 2 minutes in, seconds after the mentioned part. There's an unusual ship there with a bit of fire it looks like bottom right, what class is that? It's said to look like a cross between an Excelsior and a Miranda. – Jono R 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) O'Brien is no longer a big fan of rations? Early in the series (The circle i believe) the only thing the chief missed from the Cardassian war was field rations, it seems a continuity error he is now not a fan of them :Or that they don't make them like they used to. Sure, you can turn it into a "continuity error", but you can just as easily turn it into simply noting that he either has had a change in pallet (not unusual in people), or that combat rations in the Dominion War don't taste as good as those from the older Cardassian war. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) ::Didn't him say something like "after days of field rations we'll see if you'll still like them"? Im' surely a fan of pizza, but I think that after two weeks of pizza dinners, pizza lunches and so on I'd like something else...;) Fiming date I was reading the chat transcript here and it said they began filming on tuesday july 8th, so I added it. I don't know how to add it as a link at the bottom of the page. Longest :*''This episode has one of the longest teasers in Star Trek, lasting just over seven minutes.'' The episode has an 8 minute long teaser...though that episode does include a "previously on deep space 9..." it's still longer...— Morder 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :Since it says one of the longest teasers, I guess it's all right. 7 minutes is still pretty long. And we have a similar note on which is only 6 and a half minutes (according to us at least).– Cleanse 11:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Antagonist log? This article states that Dukat's "Permanent documentation file" is the first and only log by an antagonist. Is that correct? Kieran MacDuff made log entry in Conundrum (episode) although impersonating a Star Fleet officer. Although not antagonists the Voth kept a log and I'm sure a film era Klingon made a combat log entry on screen. Lt.Lovett (talk) 16:29, December 6, 2013 (UTC) Three months? So...should the 'three months after Call to Arms' dialogue be considered a production error worthy of note in this article? 'Call to Arms' gave a Stardate of 50975.2 (ie: late December), and while this episode doesn't give one, 'Rocks and Shoals' provides us with 51096.2, 'Behind the Lines' with 51145.3, and finally 'You Are Cordially Invited' with 50247.5. Given that there are 1000 Stardates to a year, three months into this year should be approximately 51250, which obviously does not track with the Stardates provided by episodes surrounding this one — making the "three months" here, apparently, incorrect. Worth mentioning in the article text? — DigiFluid(Whine here) 11:44, November 13, 2018 (UTC)